{"title":"What is the Relationship between the Two Ancient Syriac Peshitta Versions of 1 Maccabees? A New Proposal that Challenges the Classical Explanation","authors":"I. Carbajosa","doi":"10.1163/17455227-bja10004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The Syriac version of 1 Macc. that is preserved in Codex Ambrosianus (7a1) is very different from the one attested in the rest of the manuscripts of the Peshitta. This double attestation is typically explained by a hypothesis first put forward by G. Schmidt in 1897 that sees the version of 7a1 (Syr-2) as a revision of the original Syriac translation (Syr-1), which is the one attested in the majority of the manuscripts. This article aims to challenge this theory. In fact, this study shows that there is no relationship between Syr-1 and Syr-2, that is, Syr-2 cannot be considered a revision of Syr-1 (intended to eliminate additions), but must be understood as a new translation made from the Greek. For its part, Syr-1 is characterised by a number of double readings that could be interpreted as the work of an editor who preserves readings from two different Syriac versions of 1 Macc.","PeriodicalId":41594,"journal":{"name":"Aramaic Studies","volume":"18 1","pages":"64-98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/17455227-bja10004","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aramaic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455227-bja10004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Syriac version of 1 Macc. that is preserved in Codex Ambrosianus (7a1) is very different from the one attested in the rest of the manuscripts of the Peshitta. This double attestation is typically explained by a hypothesis first put forward by G. Schmidt in 1897 that sees the version of 7a1 (Syr-2) as a revision of the original Syriac translation (Syr-1), which is the one attested in the majority of the manuscripts. This article aims to challenge this theory. In fact, this study shows that there is no relationship between Syr-1 and Syr-2, that is, Syr-2 cannot be considered a revision of Syr-1 (intended to eliminate additions), but must be understood as a new translation made from the Greek. For its part, Syr-1 is characterised by a number of double readings that could be interpreted as the work of an editor who preserves readings from two different Syriac versions of 1 Macc.
期刊介绍:
The journal brings all aspects of the various forms of Aramaic and their literatures together to help shape the field of Aramaic Studies. The journal, which has been the main platform for Targum and Peshitta Studies for some time, is now also the main outlet for the study of all Aramaic dialects, including the language and literatures of Old Aramaic, Achaemenid Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, Qumran Aramaic, Mandaic, Syriac, Rabbinic Aramaic, and Neo-Aramaic. Aramaic Studies seeks contributions of a linguistic, literary, exegetical or theological nature for any of the dialects and periods involved, from detailed grammatical work to narrative analysis, from short notes to fundamental research. Reviews, seminars, conference proceedings, and bibliographical surveys are also featured.